The Case Against Contraception

[sw85]

If I understand correctly, you are asking me to point out a flaw in the logic against contraception?

The logic here pretty much is saying that using a condom to avoid/postpone pregnancy is illicit because it is not natural, while using NFP to do the exact same thing is licit because it IS natural.

The flaw in this logic stems from the fact that other things that are man made and artificial are not illicit. So the argument holds no water.

Yes, I am asking that. It is a logical proof after all, and if the teaching is flawed then there must be a flaw in the proof. If not, then the claim that the teaching is erroneous is itself erroneous.

As I pointed out here (in the first of those two links), “natural” in the sense the Church is referring to does not mean “occurring in nature” but “consistent with the nature of.” As I said then, the problem is one of means: of the three means available to avoid conception (NFP, abstinence, and contraception), the first two are consistent with the nature of the human sexual faculty and the latter is not.

This, I think, is relatively clear from the OP; it was only later that another poster made mention of contraception being unnatural because it is “man-made” (which I don’t think was intended as a serious argument) and it is that to which your responses have exclusively been directed. But “nature,” in that sense of the word, has nothing to do with the Church’s teachings.

 

[Debora123]

Yes, I am asking that. It is a logical proof after all, and if the teaching is flawed then there must be a flaw in the proof. If not, then the claim that the teaching is erroneous is itself erroneous.

As I pointed out here (in the first of those two links), “natural” in the sense the Church is referring to does not mean “occurring in nature” but “consistent with the nature of.” As I said then, the problem is one of means: of the three means available to avoid conception (NFP, abstinence, and contraception), the first two are consistent with the nature of the human sexual faculty and the latter is not.

This, I think, is relatively clear from the OP; it was only later that another poster made mention of contraception being unnatural because it is “man-made” (which I don’t think was intended as a serious argument) and it is that to which your responses have exclusively been directed. But “nature,” in that sense of the word, has nothing to do with the Church’s teachings.

I don’t really know what is meant by “consistent with the nature of.”

We do plenty of things that are not “consistent with the nature of…” this is just really really weird.

 

[patrick127]

This topic always devolves into a semantic argument with various terms for Birth Control and what the term “natural” really means. It also always finds its way to moral relativism and contraception proponents come to their own justification to sin. Then they publicly announce that they sin and present others with a “justification” to do the same.

You do not need a dictionary or a manual to figure this out. Birth Control happens in 2 ways: 1. Natural or 2. Unnatural. That’s it…pretty simple.

Natural methods include:

1. Not having sex

Unnatural or Artificial include:

1. Having Sex with a contraceptive

You can compare NFP to contraception if you are arguing the morality of birth control in general. But you can not equate NFP to contraception if you are arguing contraception in general.

NFP is the absence of an act; contraception introduces something to the act to prevent pregnancy. Every act during NFP can result in conception; nothing is introduced to stop it. Every time you have sex while using NFP you have to accept that a child could be the result. You cannot say the same about contraception.

 

[Debora123]

This topic always devolves into a semantic argument with various terms for Birth Control and what the term “natural” really means. It also always finds its way to moral relativism and contraception proponents come to their own justification to sin. Then they publicly announce that they sin and present others with a “justification” to do the same.

You do not need a dictionary or a manual to figure this out. Birth Control happens in 2 ways: 1. Natural or 2. Unnatural. That’s it…pretty simple.

Natural methods include:

1. Not having sex

Unnatural or Artificial include:

1. Having Sex with a contraceptive

You can compare NFP to contraception if you are arguing the morality of birth control in general. But you can not equate NFP to contraception if you are arguing contraception in general.

NFP is the absence of an act; contraception introduces something to the act to prevent pregnancy. Every act during NFP can result in conception; nothing is introduced to stop it. Every time you have sex while using NFP you have to accept that a child could be the result. You cannot say the same about contraception.

Um, actually, yes you can. According to NFP promoters, condoms have a higher failure rate (resulting in MORE pregnancies) than NFP.

As for the rest of your post, thank you. Thank you for actually admitting that the difference is that one is natural and the other is not, and that’s what supposedly separates the licit from the illicit. My point exactly, and this is the flaw in the logic.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t really know what is meant by “consistent with the nature of.”

We do plenty of things that are not “consistent with the nature of…” this is just really really weird.

Go find a couch and try to use it as a car to drive somewhere. This is what is meant by objects/people having a certain “nature”. The couch was made to be sat on. A car was meant to be driven to get places. A person’s sexual organs were made to create babies and to allow us to bond with members of the opposite sex.

 

[Debora123]

Go find a couch and try to use it as a car to drive somewhere. This is what is meant by objects/people having a certain “nature”. The couch was made to be sat on. A car was meant to be driven to get places. A person’s sexual organs were made to create babies and to allow us to bond with members of the opposite sex.

No offense, but I really don’t like these analogies. They are very strange, and always compare 2 extremely different things to each other. I really don’t think they help anyone who struggles with this issue to understand it. ("Hmmm… we cant sit on a couch and use it as a car to drive somewhere. Ok, NOW I get it! )

Sure, creating babies is part of their function. No one here is saying they weren’t. The point?

 

[Nate13]

Um, actually, yes you can. According to NFP promoters, condoms have a higher failure rate (resulting in MORE pregnancies) than NFP.

As for the rest of your post, thank you. Thank you for actually admitting that the difference is that one is natural and the other is not, and that’s what supposedly separates the licit from the illicit. My point exactly, and this is the flaw in the logic.

One of my past posts showed the difference. Its the difference between not inviting Aunt Martha to your wedding, and sending her a letter beforehand saying we do not want you to come. I’m sure Aunt Martha would be hurt by this and it is only logical to assume God would be hurt by this considering we were created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Debora123]

One of my past posts showed the difference. Its the difference between not inviting Aunt Martha to your wedding, and sending her a letter beforehand saying we do not want you to come. I’m sure Aunt Martha would be hurt by this and it is only logical to assume God would be hurt by this considering we were created in the image and likeness of God.

…what???

 

[joshrp]

The way I see it, is that if you don’t want children and you accidentally have a child, well, there is one human being right from the get-go that wasn’t created from an act of love between a man and a woman. I’m not sure I really support the act of having sex unless you specifically want a child. I’m not too crazy about NFP either. I just think that at best, every human being should be created by a conscious act of love between two human beings to create new life, and if you are having sex while specifically trying to avoid having a child, whether it is by artificial or natural means, it just doesn’t sit well with me. No human being should be “an accident”. That is just degrading in my view.

 

[Nate13]

No offense, but I really don’t like these analogies. They are very strange, and always compare 2 extremely different things to each other. I really don’t think they help anyone who struggles with this issue to understand it. ("Hmmm… we cant sit on a couch and use it as a car to drive somewhere. Ok, NOW I get it! )

Sure, creating babies is part of their function. No one here is saying they weren’t. The point?

The point is that denying the nature of a person goes against natural law. Basically the argument is when you use contraception you are making a person something that they aren’t. The person that should be responding here is the person with the philosophy major Blacksword. This idea of everything having a nature to it isn’t anything crazy though. It is taught in any basic philosophy course in college. The implications of it are something that I think the OP could go into more, and explain why it is so bad to use a person in a way against their nature.

 

[Debora123]

The way I see it, is that if you don’t want children and you accidentally have a child, well, there is one human being right from the get-go that wasn’t created from an act of love between a man and a woman. I’m not sure I really support the act of having sex unless you specifically want a child. I’m not too crazy about NFP either. I just think that at best, every human being should be created by a conscious act of love between two human beings to create new life, and if you are having sex while specifically trying to avoid having a child, whether it is by artificial or natural means, it just doesn’t sit well with me. No human being should be “an accident”. That is just degrading in my view.

Honestly, this makes infinitely MORE sense to me than the whole “NFP is ok but condoms are not” mentality.

This, while I don’t agree, I can actually UNDERSTAND.

 

[Nate13]

…what???

I’m going to quit using analogies lol. The difference between using contraception during sex and having sex during an infertile time is that contraception is like sending God a dis invitation to the party and having sex during an infertile time is at worst like not saying anything to him at all or at best saying “we aren’t fertile God, but thy will be done”.

 

[Nate13]

The way I see it, is that if you don’t want children and you accidentally have a child, well, there is one human being right from the get-go that wasn’t created from an act of love between a man and a woman. I’m not sure I really support the act of having sex unless you specifically want a child. I’m not too crazy about NFP either. I just think that at best, every human being should be created by a conscious act of love between two human beings to create new life, and if you are having sex while specifically trying to avoid having a child, whether it is by artificial or natural means, it just doesn’t sit well with me. No human being should be “an accident”. That is just degrading in my view.

I agree with this statement. Unfortunately most societies do not not allow for this mentality to flourish. Thus NFP has a necessary purpose that upholds the dignity of the human person as God has created them. I think the strongest evidence for me though that NFP will always have a purpose is the fact that some women just aren’t physically and emotionally capable of raising big families.

 

[Debora123]

The point is that denying the nature of a person goes against natural law. Basically the argument is when you use contraception you are making a person something that they aren’t.

You are not denying the nature of a person when you wear a condom, anymore than when you give them medicine for their stress headache, or clothes to cover up their natural bodies, or makeup to make themselves look more attractive.

Again, this is a natural vs artificial argument, which comes off as extremely flawed because nothing else “artificial” is illicit.

Just MHO.

 

[joshrp]

I agree with this statement. Unfortunately most societies do not not allow for this mentality to flourish. Thus NFP has a necessary purpose that upholds the dignity of the human person as God has created them.

What exactly is NFP? With all the charts, and mucous measurement, it doesn’t seem all that natural at all. Natural to me means “Hey, honey, let’s have some kids.”

 

[Debora123]

What exactly is NFP? With all the charts, and mucous measurement, it doesn’t seem all that natural at all. Natural to me means “Hey, honey, let’s have some kids.”

Thank you.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

For Deborah:

Would you read this book?

Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love God’s plan for love, marriage, intimacy, and the family

Dietrich von Hildebrand

It might help you understand the Church’s teachings better.

 

[Nate13]

You are not denying the nature of a person when you wear a condom, anymore than when you give them medicine for their stress headache, or clothes to cover up their natural bodies, or makeup to make themselves look more attractive.

Again, this is a natural vs artificial argument, which comes off as extremely flawed because nothing else “artificial” is illicit.

Just MHO.

Alright let me break this down. Your first example is the only analogy that applies directly first of all and you then are putting fertility at the same level as a stress headache. There is no way to argue that God sees fertility as anything less than something good by nature from the Bible. The same argument cannot be applied to a stress headache…

You other two arguments don’t apply as wearing clothes don’t deny the purpose of our bodies, but rather actually allow us to perform our purposes better since we are not constantly lusting after one another. Remember it was God himself who created clothes for Adam and Eve to wear after they sinned. Same thing applies to putting make-up on. It doesn’t deny the purpose of a woman in any way but rather can be used to help a woman better live out her purpose. Of course both clothes and make-up can be used in such a way to go against our nature by using them to try and create lust in those around us.

 

[joshrp]

Thank you.

NFP seems to be the result of someone who is thinking to themselves, “I really want sex, but I don’t want kids. What do I do? Aha, I have an idea.” Are we this neurotic. We act like we are having crack cocaine withdrawals when we don’t have any sex.

 

[patrick127]

Um, actually, yes you can. According to NFP promoters, condoms have a higher failure rate (resulting in MORE pregnancies) than NFP.

As for the rest of your post, thank you. Thank you for actually admitting that the difference is that one is natural and the other is not, and that’s what supposedly separates the licit from the illicit. My point exactly, and this is the flaw in the logic.

Thank you for actually admitting that NFP is licit and contraception is not. Usually that does it for me even if I struggle with the logic of it. What gets me however is that you are trying to equate (not compare, but equate) abstinence to a condom? Abstinence has always been a licit and contraception has always been illicit.